[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option
    On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Bill Davidsen <> wrote:
    > > Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are
    > > you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all
    > > say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow
    > > I don't think that's what you mean here.
    > i understood it as Interrupt Privilege Levels. The notion of having some
    > sort of scalar 'limit' - all interrupts with a higher priority than that
    > will execute, all interrupts with lower priority will block. This is a
    > fundamentally dodgy concept because in reality interrupt sources are
    > independent entities so the natural description for of them is a bitmask
    > (or an array, or whatever), not a level.

    Yeah, I was talking about interrupt priority levels. I have to admit my
    only exposure to them is a book on Solaris, they are intended as a
    mechanism to deal with priority inversions. Sounds like a neat trick on
    paper but they don't seem to be applicable here.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.020 / U:8.376 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site